November 19, 2017 at 2:38 PM #143046
Decided to make a couple of drawings for this. On the whole, what I’m proposing is that the shell trajectory for howitzers and rockets do not account for changes in the Y axis, and follow true parabolic arcs.
My reasons against the current system are that it’s basically hand holding for ranging specific areas of the map. If you know the enemy base is 1300m away, you don’t need to account for elevation, just point and go.
Another reason are the wonky physics commonly seen with howitzers and rockets, especially in a very varied elevation setting. If you’re aiming at a target 400m uphill from you, the rounds literally curve up to hit the floor at 400m. If the hill declines on the other side, and you’re trying to hit the MAV by aiming up a bit, and not the floor, those rounds are going off to orbit. It’s an incredibly unpredictable in any terrain other than flat and not user friendly system that just feels janky.
Another obvious reason is go on top of a very tall hill with a dropoff and you want to hit a target at the bottom of the hill 400m out. You aren’t going to be aiming down at them to hit them. You’re aiming borderline on the horizontal and the shells or rockets take the plummet.
“Eyeballing” your rounds is very common when shooting longer ranges with cannons, ARs, snipers, etc. to guesstimate the drop. The current system does nothing but work against this in all situations except flat land, and feels incredibly out of place.
I think that’s also the problem we’re seeing with the AI having problems hitting with ranged reticle projectiles at ranges under 500m. They usually aim for center mass, not the ground beneath the player, which leads a correction in aim to hit center mass, which results in the rounds going over our heads to hit the point on the ground behind the center of mass.
Whelp, end rant. Let’s just have true parabolic arcs (or a bit of straight flying followed by a true parabolic arc after x meters or something for rockets and maybe howies) for the players at least. The AI can have some funky system like this to let them hit, but not the players. What do you guys think?
Attachments:November 19, 2017 at 3:14 PM #143049RuludosParticipantCorporalTotal posts : 66
I have a problem using rkt-hds and multi rockets for this exact reason. I don’t know why they work the way they do now and I’m certain there was a good reason, but it seems far simpler to have rockets behave like other projectile weapons. I’m glad you mentioned ‘eyeballing’ range, because I find it almost impossible to do with any rocket system. Screamers are the only rockets this is possible with because they drop off like a cannon or sniper would.
November 19, 2017 at 3:30 PM #143053November 19, 2017 at 3:48 PM #143056
- This reply was modified 3 years, 10 months ago by Ruludos.
This system was originally put in as the second (excluding the trial periods for this) for ranged weapons. The original variation of the ranged reticle was rather inaccurate, to where the further up you aimed, your range more or less exponentially went past the marked location. It wasn’t extreme, but you’d aim at 1300 on the reticle and it’d land at 1800 or you aim at 400 and it landed at 450.
However, the projectiles felt natural and the parabolic arc and eyeballing stuff was all there, so the reticle discrepancy went unnoticed for quite some time. I think we officially confirmed it on Grassy Creek sometime around 0.6.0 when dicking around with why base ranging with the numbers on level ground wasn’t working.
[Edit] Serge, yours doesn’t account for elevation changes along the course of the projectile though.November 19, 2017 at 7:54 PM #143068
There is a massive amount of misinformation in this thread. I will show some dev shots in my next post.
While you wait, I challenge you to find a video of rounds traveling upwards in the current version of the game.November 19, 2017 at 8:10 PM #143069
For these shots, Heavy Rockets were used. All rockets (minus screamers and concussion) along with all howies, use the same system.
In the first shot, you can see me aiming across map to elevated terrain. You can clearly see the travel path (yellow line) and the destination point (red line with red ball). It is very clear there is zero accounting for elevation changes.
Second shot, I am aiming level off of a cliff. This give the flight a much more direct path and in this case there IS elevation taken into account. When aiming at anything at or below level aiming with these weapons a flat arc is calculated. This gives them the most predictable aiming in 99% of the cases.
Third shot, same location but aiming up. Traditional arc that clears the rock with zero issues. Elevation is taken into consideration since you are higher than the ground you are firing at. This still fits the curve most people would expect while maintaining accuracy to the aim range.
Fourth shot. Proof that ONLY the destination point is factored for elevation changes and only if it is lower than your firing position. Here, the arc (again yellow line) hits the side of the hill and all rounds will explode on that spot.
Again, the only real time you see a change in the arc is when aiming DOWN at something. 99% of the time this is you aiming down a small hill, looking to direct fire at an approaching enemy. Even in the extreme case of you firing off a cliff, most of the time you will be looking at direct fire and be aiming lower than 10 degrees down. The main issue is that 0 to -10 degree aiming, over a cliff.
Attachments:November 19, 2017 at 9:03 PM #143075RustyShackyParticipantMaster SergeantTotal posts : 244
I really like the look of those trajectories, Cyber.
I think a lot of the artillery arc confusion can be attributed to using a reticle that is definitely not for close ranges, paired with low angle shots, made even more awkward with high recoiling howitzers.
I can’t test at the moment but I know things do start to feel odd at certain distances with howitzers and fighting on hills. I suspect a lot of it is just a “feel” thing because of the reticle.
Maybe a “point blank” mark on the howitzer reticles is something we should have. What if the rangefinder would also change to say “DIRECT” when the trajectory arc is like in picture #2?November 19, 2017 at 9:08 PM #143076
Rusty, that is an amazing solution to the edge case.November 20, 2017 at 3:19 AM #143120
Did some testing, and have come to the conclusion you can only replicate this stuff in combat, especially with curving up projectiles. I swear I’m not crazy.
I think one of the big issues when testing downhill shots from the 0 to -10 degree shots you get a drop off of the shell following the trajectory of the last third of the yellow line in picture one instead of following the more direct shots or something along the trajectory of the first third of the yellow line in the first picture. It really is a big feel thing.November 20, 2017 at 12:39 PM #143125SergeDavidModeratorColonelTotal posts : 3065
Howitzer and rockets feel bad in certain situations. I aim in third person 80% of the time so it isn’t even an issue with the numbers the range finder displays.
One of our biggest gripes is that sharp curve on the way up you see in the images. When firing rockets they look like they instantly start that curve so aiming all the way up feels like your shooting at 15 degrees lower.November 20, 2017 at 12:50 PM #143127
I’m with Serge on that. Perhaps a re-write of the math so it keeps the current system, but adjusts so the trajectory acts as a direct fire weapon for ~10% of the weapons range then transitions to the arc behavior. Basically rockets and howitzers have a small bit of unaltered straight flight time, but the shell arc is ever so slightly more exaggerated when it passes that ~10% mark. Would probably help with the “feel” in most situations and would eliminate the sharp drop Serge mentions right out of the barrel. Especially for rockets, giving them a 15% or 20% normal flight time might make them feel 100x better.November 20, 2017 at 1:24 PM #143137
Everything you are suggesting is already in the system. In the images, the blue line is the direct shot vector and it’s length determines how long the projectile will follow the direct shot before turning into the arc. Image 3 and 4 show this very well.November 20, 2017 at 2:17 PM #143140
That’s the problem right there with feel then. The direct shot length should be fixed, not variable. Image 1 and 2 clearly demonstrate this variability. Make it a fixed direct shot length, and then things should feel 100% natural. No more guessing how long the direct fire length is going to be in variable terrain. I can guarantee this would be a much appreciated change in the usage of these weapons.November 20, 2017 at 2:25 PM #143141AxleNo7ParticipantFirst LieutenantTotal posts : 865
[2:21 PM] AxleNo7: yea that variable direct shot is fucking ass
[2:21 PM] AxleNo7: a heavy rocket is supposed to be a long range support weapon
[2:21 PM] AxleNo7: i only RARELY use it as such
[2:22 PM] AxleNo7: couse i dont trust the wonky bullshittery of moving across uneven terrain’
[2:22 PM] AxleNo7: coupled with my 10 shots
[2:22 PM] LegacyElite84: Get on and nag in the thread then.
reporting as requested
[Legacy Edit] AxleNo7: 777 posts, quitting the forum for life now bye boysNovember 20, 2017 at 2:51 PM #143142~Toast~ParticipantSergeantTotal posts : 88
[Legacy Edit] AxleNo7: 777 posts, quitting the forum for life now bye boys
Well that’s unfortunate. Toodles~
Total newbie here as i’ve only managed to use Z rockets
because I keep losing the parts I unlock! I’m just going to wait a while before I start grinding again…, but I’ve felt the same thing Serge mentioned.
- This reply was modified 3 years, 10 months ago by ~Toast~.
The forum ‘Concepts’ is closed to new topics and replies.